Pages

Posting:

Due to the current troll infestation we will be requiring you to sign in to leave a comment. Also, please note that we will be very nice in the regular posts, but we will not be gentle in the Sunday Blaspheme posts. You will be expected to back up any ideas with facts.

I am always happy to answer any questions I can:)

New Rule! Staff reserves the right to cuss you out and post your correspondence if you send us annoying emails.

Best!

Brett

Sunday, June 26, 2011

This Sunday is Nuts!

Well, willfully ignorant to say the least. Yes this is a map of a flat(ish) Earth. Not done in the dark ages or a thousand years ago, or even before Magellan circumnavigated the globe. This was done in the 1890's buy guess what? A creationist! Now I know most creationists don't believe this, but if you click on the image you can actually read the text, and there is no doubt about it this is what some creationists thought the Earth according to the Bible was like. I posted this to illustrate a point, using the Bible or Koran or whatever sacred text you hold dear that tries to explain the natural world but has no real knowledge ofit, leads to bad thinking, this map was disproven even before it was made (like thousands of years before) but because the Bible says the Earth is Flat (I'm not entirely convinced by those passages) the Map Maker willfully ignored that and followed his 'heart'. There are STILL people today who think the Earth is flat... it would be funny if it weren't so sad.

Map from here! And do click on it, it's a beautiful map, right down to the scientists being flung off the spinning globe!

I went to a NASA display of a moon rock and a lady said, "This Moon-rock is 3.75 billion years old!" Guess what I asked for the first time ever?

"Um, may I ask a question?"

And she said, "Of course."

I said, in my most polite voice, "Were you there?"

Love, Emma B

The post is about what an actual scientist thinks is a better question... "How do you know?" Why ask that? Because you might actually learn something. I think EVERYONE needs to read the post.

But just to be a jerk (like I'm being accused at the Outhouse, Juggernaught Fanboy you suck as well!) creationists. Where you there when Jesus was born, Died? Where you there when Adam and Eve ate that fruit? Where you there when God 'created' the Earth? No of course not it's a stupid question in these cases, just like it's a stupid question to ask a human if they were alive 3 billion years ago, you already know the answer. But read the post and it WILL tell you how we know that rock is 3 billion years old.

66 comments:

looks like a roulette wheel,I'm betting on black 33 ;) Wait isn't a roulette wheel also called the DEVILS wheel?and the earth is the same shape...OMG unequivocal proof the the earth belongs to SATAN!!! RUN FOR THE HILLS EVERYONE!!!NO ONE IS SAFE!!! OH AND "SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!"

Not nearly the same thing. You seem to forget who propagated the Flat Earth theory for hundreds if not fifteen hundred years. It wasn't the scientists!

And as I said, I know most creationists don't believe this. The whole point, which it looks like you missed, has nothing to do with attacking a 'weak' point unless you consider unwillingness to accept evidence that contradicts your claims a weak point. The point was NOT to blindly accept what you're told or read if there is nothing fact wise to back it up. Once again you attack when there was no need. Yes, you LEARN from errors, that's the point of making them! That's how you learn true and false, fact an fallacy. Going around and claiming you know it all when all the evidence you have is from a 2 thousand year old book that's been proven false over and over again, is NOT how you learn, it's how you mindlessly obey.

Can't you draw upstairs? I'm glad your getting some dry weather, now f you could send the rain this way that would be great!

Science mistakes are common, but so are many other occupational mistakes. It's an occupational hazard. That's why artists use erasers, and it is also how we learn. I'm sure Brett, nor you Steve, were drawing at the same level of skill now that ye were when ye first picked up a pencil/ crayon/ lump of coal/ burnt twig etc (I've actually used a burnt twig, just as a learning experience. Rather unusual to draw with. Like charcoal, but one has to 'dip' the twig in the fire to singe it, and then draw on the paper with it). The reason is because ye made countless mistakes,as all artists do, and learned from them. Time and time again. Even professional artists, whose names I will not mention, because to single out one is to single out all of them really, still make mistakes. That's where an inker is important.

To assume someone, who is a scientist or involved in science, does not make mistakes, is like saying nobody makes mistakes. But we are human, we are fallible, and we make mistakes. Even Prof Hawking, one of the foremost scientific minds alive today, admitted he was wrong. For years, he had stood by this black hole theory, yet he came out a few years back, and admitted he was wrong.And if someone says Science does not know everything, the answer is, of course it does not, because if it did, it would stop. That line is courtesy of a comedian by the name of Dara O'Briain, who studied biology in college.

There is a great interview with Carl Sagan on Charlie Rose, one of his last ever, where he talks about belief and science. Sagan, an agnostic, would never tell anyone what to believe, and neither would I. I believe in a deity, but I would never tell anyone else to either. I like healthy debate, but not an argument that 'you have to believe'. Sagan was opposed, however, to creationists, and bible/ holy text literalists. People who believe this to be the definitive version of history, rather than metaphors.

I find that little girl to be quite disturbing. Imagine if she had gone to a concentration camp, and said the same thing. How horrible would that be? I know the example is extreme, but it could be applied to anything in history. Hell, it could apply to the crucifixion too. Or slavery.

Why is evolution such a hot topic for people? I learned it in primary school (junior high is the US equivalent, I think) in religion class, for feck sake. I was not even close to my teens when I learned it. Everything from the big bang theory (I know the scientific term for it, not the regular) and so on. Yet there are adults who still don't know it.

Btw, my saying scientists make mistakes was simply pointing to the previous areas where scientists have been proven wrong. Such as holistic/ alternative therapy where a legit scientist mixes up samples, and makes a mistake. Or a 'cure' for a disease is proven to work, yet is dangerous to the pantient due to side effects. Those sorts of mistakes.

Not mistakes where something has been proven, time and time again, to be true. Evolution is not a mistake. We know it happened. On the other hand, there are certain evolutionary changes we do not why it happened, yet, but we will. Some of these are explained as cross special breeding, some are down to another reason such as environment.

So when I was saying that scientists make mistakes, I was merely looking at Brett & Steve's ashared opinion on scientists who have made proven mistakes, not people who have been proven right.

BrettYes you can definitely burn cow pies(don't ask how I know)Just make sure if there are any funky looking mushrooms growing in them to take them out first and uhh save them(don't ask how I know that either) ;)

I wasn't saying scientists shouldn't make mistakes, they should own up to them. So you have things like the Miller-Ulrey abiogenesis promoridal soup, the Galappogos Finches, Pilt Down Man, Java Man, Peppered Moths, the original Archaeoraptor, the Horse evolutionary series, Hoeckels embryos, etc.

These were all taught as fact and were revealed as fakes, frauds, or major misinterpretations of the data.

In science I understand that you modify your theory over time. So to act like what you believe now won't change or is the absolute truth is a little egotistical, and historically indefensible.

Remember Christians have believed in a round earth since about the time of Christ. The idea they believed in a flat earth only emerged around 1870 when secular scientists wanted to depict religious folks as ignorant. The whole flat earth myth is an interesting one. It has more to do with political power struggles than actual popular belief. Really the only people who hold to the notion Christians by-and-large believed in a flat earth are those who rather than do research repeat misinformation and then don't have the common decency to admit their mistakes. Folks with an anti-Christian ax to grind and no interest to do historical research.

Check out the work of Prof. JB Russell and his work on what he calls the "Flat Error." I have no idea of his religious beliefs if any.

Also I think Wikipedia has some things wrong in there entry on the flat earth (Shocker! Wikipedia wrong?!) But I do find it funny that a Gallup poll shows over 15% of the world still believes the Sun orbits the Earth.

So what is the point to all this?

1.Both Christians and non-Christians can be wrong, nutty, or just plain ignorant.

2.It is unkind and inaccurate to generalize about what all Christians believe (or believed) based off of misinformation or worse something you read once on the internet.

3.If you are going to refute a belief system you must understand it correctly and attack the most accurate, strongest form of the belief system, not pick off the non-representational minority nut jobs.

What you fail to see is WHO figured out those were frauds... (the peppered moths, Finches and the primodial soup, those are facts you refuse to accept because your religious buddies tell you they are wrong. If you'd actually RESEARCH it you might actually learn something about them.) But I digress, who figured out some of those things were wrong? It was scientists. Why was Piltdown man done, because some English men didn't want the human ancestor to be African. Archeoraptor, money, but instead of one fossil we got 2 actual fossils put together... they've found multiple new specimens of both of the animals... I fail to see how those disprove anything. This proves our point. You are grasping at any straw you can find.

As for the map, you AGAIN missed the point. Nothing to do with Christians being nutty, it's about using an ancient spiritual book as a science book. It doesn't work.

NO ONE said all christians believe this... actually read what I write instead of reading what you want. The Flat Earth idea was 'disproven' to the west hundreds of years before this. Only a few crack pots believe this and this guy used your Bible to justify it... how does that translate to I think all Christians believed this?

AS for the last thing... dude pot kettle black. But then I guess you've done a ton of research into all the other religions on the planet so you can reject them all... of course you haven't that's insane. You did what I do, there is no evidence to support them so they are rejected. I just rejected your religion as well since I don't find the evidence compelling at all.

Christians by nature are not always wrong or stupid. Non-Christians aren't always wrong or stupid.

The Bible can not prove or disprove science and anyone who uses the Bible as a science book or anyone who uses science to attack the Bible is equally wrong.

Because I don't have access to my books to research and I can't tell you which scientific myths were disproven by Christian scientists. We can agree evolutionary theory has evolved and is evolving. Therefore you can't say it is absolutely true, but it IS one understanding of the facts. I can't say it is absolutely false, but it IS an understanding of an ever changing set of facts which accepts new data and rejects old facts.

Maybe we are saying the same thing? Scientists get lots of thing wrong and change it. There are some nutty wrong religious folk. In both camps their peers come along side and correct them.

I believe that gets us to level ground.

Concentrating on only mis characterizations of religion should also be rejected. So we can put up stories about Ken Hamm and flat earthers, but to give a fair view and an honest representation of the true state of religion how about some balance with positive religious stories? It almost seems like all you want to do is show the nut balls. You can see how that would lead to a misunderstanding of the general makeup of a group of people?

It's not about who's wrong or who's right or who a nut job or who is sane.IT'S ABOUT RESPONSIBILITY!when science is wrong it's because of an honest HUMAN mistake or HUMAN greed or HUMAN desire for fame whatever,it was still a HUMAN mistake.when a religious person is wrong,there is no responsibility there.It's because their GOD told them it was that way or humans are all evil horrible pathetic creatures born with an original sin that GOD created in the first place and that only some GOD can absolve them of or they thought some GOD told them to go blow up a building and kill thousands of people.Even the everyday run of the mill status quo non problem causing Christians believe that what they do and are is because of GOD.Screw that! if you screwed up it was your fault and because of a HUMAN flaw.If you succeed and do well it's because of YOU and positive HUMAN traits.Stop blaming the nonexistent God for the problems and stop giving him credit for the good when it's all about YOU!As for positive religious stories,name one positive thing,ONE!that was done strictly because that person or group was Christian/Muslim/Buddhist etc...and not because ANY caring,empathetic HUMAN with the means would have done the same thing with out GOD.You can't,as they did those thing because they were HUMAN and in spite of GOD,not because of him.

I must be misunderstanding you. Be caring and empathetic are Christian traits rooted in God's character, they are counter to Naturalism. Greed and desire are not negative traits for a survival of the fittest worldview, they are very good for the evolutionist. The good of the herd, which is the usual defense, does not apply when it is not of your herd. More than any other group Christians give more money, time, and energy to social causes, the poor, the sick, the dying, the alien, and their enemies. Time and time again, even if it is the right and "human" thing to do, people tend to choose selfish self centered life paths.

In your twenty years as a devout Christian didn't you often go on mission trips? Didn't you feed the needy? Didn't you extend a helping hand to others? Didn't you serve not to win God's approval but out of a joy of already having it? Didn't you find yourself doing servant evangelism even to folks who had no connection to you, or worse, you didn't like? Why is there a voice which tells us this is good, and right, and it is wrong to be a self centered egotistical scrooge? How does that evolve?

Christians do take responsibility, in fact we have a higher standard; accountability.

And yes, you can use science to disprove the bible. Why do you think Creationists have such a problem with science? Because it disproves the literal interpretation of the Bible they cling to.

But one is based on testing and retesting, the other is just someones interpretation. That's not the same thing. You are giving opinions WAY to much power in your thinking. Science isn't based on opinions, it's based on observable, testable and falsifiable evidence.

As for you comments to fatboy, you think so little of nature, yet you know nothing of it. And you missed the point of the question, he's asking you so show proof that people give BECAUSE of their religion, NOT because they are caring people. Basically if a miser like Scrooge gives money simply because he's religious OR because he's really a good guy.

This is so funny! You sure don't seem to care about the earth you leave behind. All you 'giving' has motives, you need to make God happy so he will take you to heaven. I have far more respect for those that give for the sake of giving, to improve us, not merely keep us stagnated in what they perceive as something good an moral.

Actually dhr, it's the exact opposite. The 'sell' is that what we have is based off evidence. Religion require faith, I don't have faith in non belief. I have a trust in the facts that science provides.

dhr,I'm not selling anything here,if I were trying to sell atheism why would I be trying to do it on a blog that is run by an atheist?One would think that I would be over on the religious sites trying to push my agenda.If I have any kind of agenda at all it's that I want the believers(Steve especially)to at least quit the concrete evidence and scientific reasoning BS behind their faith.Just face reality,tell the truth and admit that you believe despite the evidence,not because of it.Quit trying to take faith and turn it into a science or something concrete.

In both our (me and Brett and Fatboy) cases we are putting faith in the works of others. Me, Brett and Fatboy are not biologists. So we aren’t doing experiments, we don’t have labs, and we have not observed, tested, repeated or done any sorts of hands on scientific work. We all have to admit when it comes to science we are mainly reading other people’s work and saying I agree with that, it sounds good to me, that makes sense. I’ve also talked to a handful of biologists face to face (both evolutionists and idists) to help me understand both sides of the argument without distortion. We are all taking some things on faith without any evidence. The scientific principle is a human construction and it is proving not to be reliable at a subatomic level. There are a lot of findings coming out of quantum mechanics which are changing many long held physics truths. In science when one area changes, it effects other areas, so we are in a state of flux. This is nothing new, theories are always revised and modified. This is why I tend to be more cautious with what I accept as scientific fact. If all the parts don’t have empirical evidence I’m very slow to offer a concrete acceptance.

There is currently no working abiogenesis model; evolutionists have to admit this, and accept this is a major problem. If the very first step in evolution can not be proven, it is a bit difficult to with certainty to say there is no faith involved. That’s not to say there aren’t hypotheses; just none currently can be proven to work. Maybe one day, one will, but until then this is a major hole in the theory. I think the RNA on the Ocean floor scenario during the Hadean period is the current leading idea. Kind of interesting, lots of Pros and even more Cons, nowhere near a fact. So honest evolutionists admit this is an unknown, work is being done, but it currently is a problem being worked on. Cool. This is how science works. It is the study of the “we don’t know yet” areas of the physical world.

It is odd when a Naturalist tries to state their case as if they were arguing from concrete facts while I, a Christian, am working from only faith. It means they simply are no more familiar with the evidence for my beliefs than they are familiar with the weaknesses in their own. And as I pointed out before, the Creation account, at the details level, is not a foundationally doctrinal part of the Christian faith. Christians believe God is the Creator and sustainer of existence. We believe he gave us brains and an inquisitive mind to try to figure things out. The Bible describes his creative role, but does not attempt to explain it. You can be an evolutionist and still be a Christian.

Take Fatboys lengthy post about alternative Messiahs and the supposed inaccuracy of the Bible. If you only read his post, and took it at face value, it would present some interesting discussion points, but would not disprove the historically known facts about Christianity. This is key, it would not disprove Christianity, if his post was true. The problem is his post was similar to my last minute high school literature reports; it is a haphazard assembly of disjointed partial facts which do not add up to a whole. In other words, the best evidence is it was demonstratively false, not true.

I love a good discussion, but I’m weary of arguments. When there is genuine interest in a true understanding of a topic, both sides must work out of humility, because everyone has to admit strengths and weaknesses. When you ignore the weak areas of your own views and over state the weaknesses of the other side it really isn’t a discussion. We might as well just hold up picket signs and yell at each other.

So again I’m done with this thread. Brett is at an absolute awesome place in his career. I want him to put all his energy into the Teen Titans and not worry about arguing with little old me.

I do want to clarify something, it goes back to the truly asinine line in Jurassic park about the condors. And it's what Steve seems to think might have some merit. Yes, you can't go back and do all the old science experiments again, it would take far to long and by the time you did them you'd be fricken old. Science is built on old experiments BUT those experiments have proven to be true. You learn some of them in science class. So if these are true WHY should they have to be done again? YOU WILL NEVER ADVANCE that way. You will be stuck in a loop. You take what others have learned and that has been proven and you go from there. You BUILD on the knowledge.

And stop with the abiogenesis, they are researching it. They do have ideas they are trying to test. But I'm sure YOU don't know what was around on the planet originally. That might take some time to figure out. And they have already created 2 of the 4 main building blocks (ironically from the very experiment Steve keeps saying failed.) they just couldn't detect them at the time.

No one is saying Christianity isn't real, we're saying who you worship isn't, very different things. Who's the ones that plunged us into the dark ages? Christians.

Sometimes I need a break from the crazy so I will simply stop reading the comments for awhile. Plus I can't be set to comics mode all the time you burn out that way. Right now I'm in crazy Bigfoot's mode and will try to get a post done about that soon. I have to do this TT 100 pinup and Cover to 3 first:(

Brett,I was drawn to your blog due to your new status as the Teen Titans artist. Haven't read anything drawn by you before, but enjoying what I've seen.Though I am a Christian, I view the Bible as infallible; the popular Christian viewn, which I believe is the one you oppose, is inerrancy. Theologically speaking, infallibility states that though the Bible may not be a reliable source for scientific and historical fact; it is still inspired, concerned with spiritual truth. For instance, there are acutally two creation stories in Genesis: 1:1-2:4a and 2:4b-2:25. In the first story man and woman are created at the same time, spoken into existence. The second has Adam created from the earth and given life with God's breath before Eve is created from his rib. Both stories portray the same spiritual truths: God created all and mankind is given reign over creation. These stories were written independent of eachother by two authors. Though God gave them the spiritual truth to portray, there is no doubt that the specifics concering how God created or what order of creation are left to the author's understanding of the world. I share this, not to change your opinion on the matter, but to present a more modern Christian view that does not completely disregard science.

I live in Europe, and am fond of our culture and history. I read a lot of book written BY the authors of the diverse eras, rather than books ON them. Well, that the Middle Ages were "dark ages" is an invention dating back to the 18th century propaganda.

Honestly, if the alternative to Religion were Commonplace, I would choose the former...

Bible quotes from the second creation story (yes I have known about it for some time,) one of things that make the Bible a man made construct. Different versions of creation, Jesus birth and life. How can the bible be infallible if it's wrong half the time and can't keep it's story straight?

Religion and Science must be kept separate if science is to be fact based. And you know, work.

dhr,

I'm sorry... that's wrong form a science stand point. Do you know science understanding went BACKWARDS during those times? It's was truly a dark age for science and to question the church... well ask Galileo how well that went.

Here's a neat graphic showing how well the dark ages worked out for science:

You said: "I want a cult! It's easier to hate God if you have a cult... seriously;)"

You know that 90s song, tell me all your thoughts on God, cuz I'd really like to meet Her?

Well I don't plan on meeting any dieties until I'm deceased, and at that point hopefully it's not Mephisto. But I do want to know your real thoughts on God. Do you hate Him? Do you not believe in Him? Do you not believe either way?

I believe in God and I don't care if every part of the Bible is true or not. It was written by people. Not angels, saints, J.C. or God. The part that I take to heart are the Gospels. It takes 4 diff. accounts of the same story for me to consider something legit.

Religion hasn't caused suicide bombers or crusades. That stuff is caused by a quest for wealth, land, and power. With religion as a propoganda tool. The only thing that TRUE Christianity will make you do is love your enemy...or buy their comic.

Any attempt to sway my belief is a mute point. My thoughts on Jesus are the same as my thoughts on Willaim Wallace. As the opening line of Braveheart goes: "I shall tell you of William Wallace. Historians from England will say that I am a liar. But history is wrote by those who have hanged heroes"...or crucified them.

What is the point of believing in God. A.) it feels good B.) it gives me an invisible friend when real ones are hard to come by.

But I have seen a miracle. Similar to Angels in the Outfield, only let's call this one Angels on the Gridiron.

Ever heard of Frank Reich? Not the nazi. The quarterback. Started at QB for U. of Maryland. Only, he had a bad injury his senior year. While he's injured realizes he lost the faith he was raised on while livin w/ the glitz an glam of bein big man on campus. So he rededicates himself to God.

But while he's injured, the other guy does so good Frank doesn't get his job back. Until Maryland goes down 31-0 to defending nat'l champs U. of Miami at halftime. Coach puts in Frank. He leads Maryland all the way back to a 42-40 win. Biggest comeback in college football history.

Frank goes to the pros. Backup QB on the Bills. Jim Kelly gets injured. Frank gets to start. Bills go down 35-3 to the Dolphins in the playoffs. Frank leads em all the way back to a 41-38 win, biggest comeback in NFL hiistory.

Comebacks are reliant on so many factors: offense, defense, special teams, coaching, time, luck. The percentage chance of one man quarterbacking the 2 biggest comebacks in football history in the .0000000000000000000000000001 range.

O ya, can't have a miracle w/out angels. If you watch film, in each game theres a play where the defender gets 2 hands on a pass to intercept it. Not only do they not catch it either time, but both times they alter the flight of the ball so it goes right to Frank's receiver for a big catch. Starting to see the Angels in the Outfield connection...

Did God do whatever Frank wanted? No, Frank got crushed in the Super Bowl a couple weeks later. God did it his way. To give people who believe a brief glimpse of His power. Power that makes the Teen Titans look like girl scouts.

Let's see. I don't believe in your god, he's no more real to me than Zeus, Odin or Shiva. I have no 'feelings' about him one way or the other. I really do like mythology and so I have written stories about fallen angels and the like. I'm more a fan of the older Christian texts outside of the bible. Far more interesting to me. I'm a man of evidence and science. There simply isn't any evidence to support any religion. So I have no reason to believe.

I'm not sure who you were quoting by that wasn't me.

Braveheart might be a good movie, but it's far from accurate. Those lines might actually be from a Hollywood writer, not Wallace.

How does religion NOT quest for power? The more followers it has the more it can control them. The more POWER it has over them. And the amount of wealth the Church has accumulated, the TV ministries and mega churches is staggering. How is that not about money? You see what you want to see.

So because I don't agree with your opinion on religion I'm an enemy? And you say religion hasn't caused suicide bombers or crusades... Making someone an enemy simply because they disagree with you is the first step.

I'm not trying to sway your belief. I'm trying to get you to think! Use some reason!

"What is the point of believing in God. A.) it feels good B.) it gives me an invisible friend when real ones are hard to come by. "

That's fine for you, but I have questions Religion can't or wont answer. 'Why' is my favorite word. Not getting those questions answered doesn't feel good to me, it annoys the crap out of me. Invisible friends are fine for children, I'm no longer a child so I don't need or want one. I;d prefer a vollyball, at least that would be real.

I don't care for watching sports... And that is a horrible 'miracle.' So answer me this, if god does miracles why are there still amputies? Why didn't he stop the bombers on 9/11? Why does he kill his children with floods, famine and wars. Why does he hide from us? You know what an actual good show of power would be... STOPPING THOSE THINGS FROM HAPPENING. A football game ... wow. Your definition of miracle is very different from mine. Why did he kill everyone on the planet, including almost all the animals, because a few humans pissed him off. And if children are innocent then he killed a bunch of innocents with that flood, the first borns of Egypt, Jericho, ect. Not a nice God to me.

Thanks, but no need to stroke my ego here:) Here we fight!;)(kidding, riffing on the enemy thing)

Thanks for responding! Cool and fun answer to my ramblings. Ok, this is my REAL last post

I hate no one! Someone could rape my wife (not even dating, so obviously hypothetical), shoot me in the eye, or shave my cat and I wouldn't demand revenge. I did get pretty pissed when my nephew messed w/ my comics, though.

Christianity has NOTHING to do with violence. Someone once asked Jesus what the important commandments were. He responded: 1.) Love God above all others 2.) Love your neighbor. And he told stories of turning the other cheek when someone hits you and about the Good Samaritan. How could that stuff possibly inspire someone to violence?

Religion is not a cause of violence. When religion gets in the hands of militants and politicians, then religion becomes associated with violence and corruption.

As for proof...we can't even prove that we landed on the moon and we have video of that, how can I prove to you that God sent His Son to save our comic reading souls two thousand years ago? I can't. But I'm a smart dude. Seen and done a lot of bad stuff. So I live in reality...outside of when I'm reading comics that is. I don't just blindly follow.

A couple things bolster my faith: Tacitus, Roman senator and historian from early A.D. wrote: "Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."

Anyway, just like William Wallace, early Christians and Scots were too poor to have written records. This is word of mouth tradition. Stories that inspired people so much that they risked getting tortured and killed to tell 'em.

1 request. Zeus is a name. So it gets a capital letter. God is the name of my God. Not like I'm referring to a god in general. As a favor to me, when you're speaking of the Christian God can you use a capital G? If you feel stupid saying that, you can say Yahweh, which is the name he told Moses. If you ever saw that Charlton Heston epic.

Then you are different man than I, for killing or even intentionally hurting someone dear I would hate, and have. I don't hate your god because it's not real, no need to. I do hate the Pope, and all the child molesters the Catholic church has hidden.

Didn't your god kill like almost everyone on the planet? How is that NOT violent? Maybe if everyone went in their sleep but he DROWNED them. I guess those water boarded guys were just a bunch of babies!

And didn't Jesus say something about converting people by the sword? Isn't there a climactic battle at the end of your book? Lots of people dying? Sounds violent to me.

Religion gives people reasons to hate, and to act. It might not be the cause of wars, but it sure as hell isn't the solution.

OK, PLEASE tell me you're not one of those moon conspiracy people. We can SEE the flag on the moon with telescopes. It's been done. You can't prove your god or Jesus existed, so why should I believe in something that has no proof? I mean Bigfoot has more evidence, but I'm not a believer.

Ah, Ok, so the Christians were persecuted at one point... that provides me with no evidence for god and by that reasoning you should be a witch since they were persecuted far more recently. Can you see the fuzzy logic you are using?

BS!!!! Early Christians were Greeks and Romans... they HAD LOTS of writings that have survived. There are TONS of early christian writings that were simply left out of the bible, which didn't show up for a few hundred years after Jesus's supposed death.

Your god's name isn't God, it's Yahweh, since your god has no sway over me he gets no better treatment then Zeus. I will respect the tradition of capitalizing names, I will not do it out of respect for any religion. Plus it amuses the hell out of me that things like that piss people off so much. And of course why should I respect a religion that doesn't respect my views? You don't get special treatment form me simply because you think it owed to you.

There are a gajillion diff. religions. And the 3 main ones, Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in the same God. They just interpret it diff. Jews don't believe Jesus was a savior. And Muslims believe God tells them to kill people to gain power.

Why do I pick Christianity? It's all in the process. How it was created. By a guy. Who caused a big rucus. He got killed. The people He taught, kept causing a rucus after He was killed. Every one of His 12 apostles was tortured, killed, or imprisoned eventually.

These early Christians hid and told people Jesus' story and gave all their time and money to help people. This is where Christianity separates itself and legitimizes itself to me.

They weren't getting anything for this. No money. No respect. No land. No titles. They lived with a Dude (not the one from the Big Lebowski) that they believed so strongly was the Savior, that they threw away the rest of their lives from a social standpoint. Most of these guys were middle class. They had decent jobs. WHY would they do it?

The only thing you can even remotely compare to it is a cult. B/c they die for a cause with nothing in return. But those are all drug related. Is it any wonder why they believe Winnie the Pooh tells them to drink the special kool-aid?

I believe and God hooks me up when I need it. Jesus said if you believe, God would never put you in a situation you can't handle. I stole $10,000 one time and was arrested. I didn't go to jail. I'm claustraphobic and not tuff enough to avoid becoming some1s biotch. I couldn't handle jail. I had to pay all the $$ back over time and I cleaned up my act. Now, if I do more bad sh!t and say "God, get me outta this or I won't believe in You"...pretty sure that's a deal breaker.

But to prove my point that TRUE Christians are pacifists. This girl in the army i'm talkin to is pretty bad@$$. Got at least 10 kills under her belt. But I guilt tripped her by harping to her that God said 'thou shall not kill' and J.C. said to be peaceful. Got to her so much that she's quitting after her time in Afg.

I'm sure I've made more enemies than friends w/ this post. Destroying the military 1 soldier at a time. But such is the way of a Shinobi.

I wrote that last post before I read your previous response. So I guess i gotta comment on the violence thing.

God did take out the Egyptians. God did wipe out almost everyone w/ a flood.

The Egyptians were like Nazis. No one likes Nazis. Except there was no Allied Forces to oppose em back then. So God had to step in.

As for the flood...DC comics messed up by having so much screwed up continuity that it rebooted. The earth was screwed up. God rebooted.

He created the earth. He can reboot it if he sees the need. People were better the 2nd time around so He sent a Son to help us this time.

Did God create the earth? Ya. Exactly like the bible? No idea. Doubt it. But if you're belief is that a giant rock one day appeared in the universe and blew up into a bunch of other rocks that all formed perfect circles, one of which grew algae which evolved to people who can type on blogs...your thoughts are a lot more far-fetched than mine.

The pope and priests and bishops are all products of money and politics. Jesus always talked about how corrupt religious people are. Christianity to me, means following Christ's example. Which is how I try to roll. Aside from the attire. I couldn't work a tunic.

OK, 150% last post. GUARANTEED. Let's end this discussion as friends. I respect your views. I like your art. You don't believe in God b/c you have no proof. My proof is not very scientific. Thus, it would take a better man than me to convince you.

What is up w/ the spider chick? Is she new for this series? And is she a spider??

Btw, gracias for giving Yahweh a capital Y. If you see a burning bush, don't try to put it out...

"I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" (Gospel of Matthew 10:34)

I'm ALL for peace, unfortunately humans don't do that well.

A man wouldn't convince me, some solid evidence would. But I still wouldn't follow even then. A higher being would not want other to worship it. Nor would a higher being deem a football game worthy of his miracles but earthquakes, planes being flown into building, flooding, ect clearly not the case.

She is not a spider... or at least not to my knowledge. Scott has a habit of changing things and not telling me. Originally her outfit was sort of organic tech... not sure now.

Just so you know, what happens in these posts stays here. We can disagree and 'fight' but in the others posts it's relaxed and friendly. I've been going at it with Steve for over 10 years. But I still work with him and talk to him on the phone when I get some free time:)

Ok, I'll need references for St. Bonaventure. I could find nothing on the web but his theological stuff. If he had predicted that, I would have thought it would be all over the web. And that's ONE guy, and everything I read makes no mention of actual science.

Technology is science. There were no improvements in medicine, natural history, astronomy, the Flat Earth idea is from those times, even though the Egyptians proved the Earth round in 2000BCE. That's backwards.

16th century was not part of the dark ages. Darwin was not the first person to come up with the idea of natural selection, he just put it all together and published it. Darwin'd grandfather had a similar idea. It had been floating around academia for a bit.

'Thinkers' are not scientists. Theology and philosophy are not sciences, as St. Bonaventure was a doctor of those things maybe that's what's confusing you?

Well a reference would be nice so I can see what the context is. I've not heard of that before so I'd like to know if it's actually true, a myth or a misread.

That's in the US, you seem to forget about the European witch burnings:

http://www.gendercide.org/case_witchhunts.html

Since that's at the end of the 'dark ages' and in Europe, a much better match than something in the US, also caused by religious ferver.

Actually it's from the 19th century. Not Hollywood. Interesting how some thing still prevail in the modern times. But while this isn't actually a point now, what about Galileo? The Church clearly had Europe in the palm of it's hand was was controlling/repressing science even after the Dark ages... they just couldn't burn them anymore.

Even today if the Evangelicals would have their way we would be plunged into a new dark age for science. Bush tried it a few years ago, luckily Europe stepped up.

so, as it could be suspected from the beginning: THIS is the problem. When you read "Medieval European culture (literature, philosophy, cosmology, etc.)" you have "current American Evangelicals" in your mind. Dinosaur-killing Flood. Flatland. Gays going "to hell"...

Btw, did you know that Dante had many homosexual friends? But, one writes "Dante," you read "Dubya" :-)

In sum. You are absolutely right in cringing in front of those dudes, but let me tell you that the two categories have NOTHING to do with each other (except a vague reference to "the Gospel," which is an umbrella concept in which everybody saw and sees what he/she likes best).

'Believe' me.

And, excuse me if I made you lose a lot of time, well, even lose patience, on this issue. But I will rather pay attention to you art from now on.

Finally, the unmissable phishing, the saddest phenomenon in Human History: hope you will be visiting my blog some day :-)

It's true, Dante met his homosex friends in "hell," but - as his son Jacopo Alighieri explained - Dante's hell, purgatory and heaven were not places in afterlife at all. They were just expedients to show the different human conditions. In fact, after meeting them in so-called "hell," Dante simply talks to them about culture and politics, and ends by saying that he will make their names be honored in future times also. And it has been so!

[ Other homosexual people were seen by him in purgatory: those ones, of course, were already destined to heaven. ]

In reference to the quote: "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword"...Most any quote taken out of context won't hold its true meaning. Like if you told people I said "I like to lick my own butthole" without telling them that I preceded that by saying "I wonder if my dog thinks to himself:"

Jesus never once picked up a weapon. He never once struck someone. He even held back his followers from attacking the soldiers who had come to arrest him.

Jesus came to bring a sword the same way John Lennon brought a sword: by upsetting the status quo. Except instead of trying to overthrow all the gov'ts of the world w/ a piano, J.C. contradicted almost all of the religious leaders of the day.

Absolutely no shame in following Jesus. Even if you don't consider him the Messiah, you can't deny He is the coolest hombre who ever roamed the Earth. The round or flat version of it. My favorite story about Jesus is when some religious elites came to try to trick him into saying something illegal so they could have him arrested or killed.

So Jesus was just chilling, kneeling down and drawing in the sand (this was pre-internet remember). The elites come up to him with a prostitute and said "the law says this girl deserves to be stoned, what say you Jesus of Nazareth?" (i'm paraphrasing). Jesus looked at the girl, thought for a second, then said "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone." And then Jesus went back to drawing in the sand. The old religious farts grumbled to each other for a bit then walked out, leaving the prostitute.

Jesus looked up at the girl. He didn't scold her in a moment of shame, he just told her he didn't condemn her and said "go, and sin no more." D-D-DAM!!! Anyone doubting why J.C. is the one man I'll kneel before?

No I don't. I have a bunch of evidence that supports the surpression of science during the middle ages. The flat earthers of the 19th century confirm this. If religion is in charge, they will warp and ignore science if it contradicts their book. We just lucked out that Martin Luther split the church, causing it to loose power.

If he met them in hell then it wasn't real,, just a story. But I'm sure there were plenty of gay people back then. That proves nothing.

And again, were is the evidence for Bonaventure? I'm beginning to think it doesn't exist and it was just a story being passed around.

shinobi100,

In the context that Jesus comes and battles Satan in the end times, he is a warrior, I'm sure a sword is preferred to fish. Please note, that this is YOUR interpretation, others don't agree with you (I honestly don't care either way.) This is not the only time Jesus makes claims of aggression:

"I have come to cast fire upon the Earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism* to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! 51 Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; 52 for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father* against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. (Luke 12:49-53)"

I will deny Jesus existed until I get some actual evidence for him. Right now, there isn't very much. And since Jesus was a fairly common name (this from religious scholars) it would need to be something specific. Remember everything about him was written down 20 to 70 years after his death... People didn't live long back then so it's more than likely most of this is second or even third hand accounts... if they actually accounts at all.

Sure the Buddy Christ seems cool, but he still advocates torcher, exclusion and his father's a dick;)

chemical processes:

Of WHOM do you speak? And this is sort of an organic thing, misspellings and misuses will always happen. Spell check doesn't catch everything. No need for the grammar police if you can understand what's being said;)

I had already posted something about it in a couple of websites (not my own) some months ago. How could the god Techno-Google miss it?

Anyway the complete text can be now "seen" at:

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n628/Dariodhr/Bonaventura.jpg

from: "De reductione artium ad theologiam" #12

If it seems pointless to you, it will be a sad thing. Not - absolutely - because I was trying to "convert" you (to what, incidentally?), but because I tried to have you, a TT-etc. artist, enjoy the unexpected Marvels of this Universe. I have a whole collection of such "Fortean" texts and facts.

A translation, if needed, can be requested by private email (dario.rivarossa at gmail.com)

Again, with the fire quote, it's being taken out of context. Jesus never lit anyone on fire, never juggled it, never ate it.

The point is the same as the sword quote. What Jesus had to say wasn't easy. He was the Messiah, and the only way to God was through Him. If you just saw a skinny dude w/ a beard walking down the street, would you easily buy into the fact he's God's Son?

Jesus divided people b/c of what He taught. Some believe in Him, some don't. Even diff. beliefs within the same family. You'll find the same thing today.

As for Armaggedon...epic movie. As for that part of the bible. I have no idea. It was based on somebodys vision or hallucination or something. Simple fact is that if Jesus does come back dual wielding scythes or M-16s w/ a grenade launcher attachments, He won't obliterate anyone who believes in Him. I'd say that's pretty fair. He only gave us a couple thousand years advanced notice

Show me a point from the Bible where you wouldnt call him Buddy Christ? He helped anyone who asked. He associated himself w/ the most hated an vile people. He gave away everything he had.

Only 2 times I recall Him getting pissed. 1.) when people were selling jewelry an stuff inside His Dad's house (the temple), He knocked over their booths an scolded em.

2.) the night b4 He died He asked his apostles to stay awake for a couple hours while He went to pray. He came back an they were all asleep. He got pissed. When you know you're going to be tortured an killed, it's a lil bit stressful.

The God that you hate, sent his Son, to help ALL of humanity. His Son was hated. Tortured. Killed. Is that easy for ANY dad? All to keep us schmucks who read comics and point telescopes at our 16 yr. old high school cheerleader neighbors window from suffering an eternity of fire and carrot top jokes.

And again shinobi100, that is YOUR interpretation. Others read it differently. You are assuming of course that you are reading it right;) (I'm not saying it either way, just showing you that not all sects read it as you do, that doesn't mean you're wrong and they are right, or the inverse.)

Yeah and dividing people is ALWAYS the way to peace, same thing as today;)

So, because you don't like that part of the bible it's a hallucination? Why is that any different then the creation story? Or Sodom and Gomorrah? Or the resurrection of Christ and Lazarus? If one parts fantasy then why not all of it?

First off, your god doesn't exist, so I don't hate him. The Pope, sure he's and ass, but your god, nope. I like mythology.

If you truly loved your son and your other children then letting them die for something as trivial as eating a fruit is the EXACT OPPOSITE. To sentence the CHILDREN of your flawed creation to hell for an eternity for something they had no control over, the punishment does not fit the crime. That's not love. To demand worship is not a higher being, it is a bully.

If you just saw a skinny dude w/ a beard walking down the street, would you easily buy into the fact he's God's Son?

No I'd probably call the cops and tell them Charles Manson somehow got lose and they need to come pick him up.

His Son was hated. Tortured. Killed. Is that easy for ANY dad?

It is when you consider that after the relatively short amount of suffering he gets to go and become one(creepy)with his father again.Isn't that the Christian way?short period of pain and suffering on earth is nothing when compared with an eternity of heaven?

Our Dog Blog

Search This Blog

Loading...

Blog Policy

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. I require you to sign a name. I do not care if it's your real name, any name will do. You do not have to register, just sign your comment. Starting 4/10/09, all anonymous, unsigned comments WILL BE DELETED.